[bitcoin-dev] Using a storage engine without UTXO-index
tomas at tomasvdw.nl
Fri Apr 7 08:47:56 UTC 2017
Thank you Marcos,
Though written in Rust, bitcrust-db is definitely usable as pluggable
module as its interface will be roughly some queries, add_tx and
add_block with blobs and flags. (Bitcrust internally uses a
deserialize-only model, keeping references to the blobs with the parsed
However, from Core's side I believe network and storage are currently
rather tightly coupled, which will make this far from trivial.
Regardless, I am also hoping (with funding & a team) to build a Bitcrust
networking component as well to bring a strong competitor to the market.
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017, at 09:55, Marcos mayorga wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
> I've read it and think it is an excellent work, I'd like to see it
> integrated into bitcoin-core as a 'kernel module'.
> I see there are a lot of proof of concepts out there, IMO every one
> deserve a room in the bitcoin client as a selectable feature, to make the
> software more flexible and less dictatorial, an user could easily select
> which features she wants to run.
> Best regards,
> > I have been working on a bitcoin implementation that uses a different
> > approach to indexing for verifying the order of transactions. Instead of
> > using an index of unspent outputs, double spends are verified by using a
> > spend-tree where spends are scanned against spent outputs instead of
> > unspent outputs.
> > This allows for much better concurrency, as not only blocks, but also
> > individual inputs can be verified fully in parallel.
> > I explain the approach at https://bitcrust.org, source code is available
> > at https://github.com/tomasvdw/bitcrust
> > I am sharing this not only to ask for your feedback, but also to call
> > for a clear separation of protocol and implementations: As this
> > solution, reversing the costs of outputs and inputs, seems to have
> > excellent performance characteristics (as shown in the test results),
> > updates to the protocol addressing the UTXO growth, might not be worth
> > considering *protocol improvements* and it might be best to address
> > these concerns as implementation details.
> > Kind regards,
> > Tomas van der Wansem
> > tomas at bitcrust.org
> > Bitcrust
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
More information about the bitcoin-dev